Last week Dr. Winkle, a professor at Ole Miss, had us review the two Brown v. Board of Education decisions given by the Supreme Court in the mid-twentieth century. Now, I’m sure we look at the decision in at least two of my high school social studies classes, but the only tidbit I can glean from my memory of the substance in those classes related to this court decision is that it solved the civil rights problem. In part I’m joking about really believing now that it solved the problem, but I really do remember hearing something like that in high school. Plessy v. Ferguson supported segregation (for a Northerner in a rural high school, that’s not cool), and Brown v. Board promoted integration (hurray for civil liberty and stuff). We never actually saw what the decisions looked like in high school. Read the texts themselves? How droll!
So this time around, actually reading Warren’s opinion, I was very intrigued. The whole statement, of the first part of the decision, goes into the social research that indicates that Negro children do worse and suffer all kinds of damage by being forced into segregated settings. As I read it and underlined the large parts where Warren referenced research publications, I thought that something was strange about it. I was expecting legal jargon and reference to more previous cases. Nope. The Fourteenth Amendment, of course, is mentioned as a principle, but beyond that there’s very little reference to precedent.
I had my paper marked up and highlighted according to such intrigue, especially focusing on the many passages where it is asserted that Negro children receive some kind of detriment when segregated. Dr. Winkle confirmed my suspicions that this was a very strangely put together statement. For a moment he touched on the idea that major precedents were altogether rejected, namely, Plessy v. Ferguson. Furthermore, the reason for rejecting them was not some legal principle from the Constitution or some other precedent, but social research, which is even today considered shaky ground (for “a recent study shows how healthful eggs really are for you…”). Because the research showed that Negro children received a detriment in segregated environments, then the “separate but equal” standing was flawed; Warren asserted that separate inherently could never be equal, with the research as the major backbone.
It’s wild. Now, I’ll be quick to admit that I think the Brown v. Board decision is a helpful one, and a triumph in civil rights. But it’s wild. I felt anxious when reading it. It seemed as if Warren and the others were issuing the decision as a desperate attempt at something long hoped for. A desperate attempt. I’m not political science student or jurisprudence major, but it feels odd to say that a huge weight was given to the civil rights movement when the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment with contemporary social research. The interpretation doesn’t sound, well, legal—not to say it was illegal, but more alegal. It raises for me the curiosity not of the Supreme Court’s authority, but of what legal information may be lacking in the Constitution itself. I am, however, altogether unqualified to ask any serious questions about law or constitutionality.
On the whole I felt like the conversation with Dr. Winkle was too short, but I was also in no state to continue it at lunch that day (my head-cold wasn’t quite gone at that time). He spent a long length of time talking about the immediate history playing into the Brown v. Board decision, including some insight into the attitudes and interplay among the Justices. He also spoke briefly of Thurgood Marshall. I wish we had more time to talk with him! Ashton, another intern who is a political science major at Ole Miss and a huge fan of Dr. Winkle, would surely agree that our meeting was a fun one.
Please excuse me if I messed up some legal term or other. We Johnnies often only understand anything in part and as it relates to parts of a lot of other things.
So this time around, actually reading Warren’s opinion, I was very intrigued. The whole statement, of the first part of the decision, goes into the social research that indicates that Negro children do worse and suffer all kinds of damage by being forced into segregated settings. As I read it and underlined the large parts where Warren referenced research publications, I thought that something was strange about it. I was expecting legal jargon and reference to more previous cases. Nope. The Fourteenth Amendment, of course, is mentioned as a principle, but beyond that there’s very little reference to precedent.
I had my paper marked up and highlighted according to such intrigue, especially focusing on the many passages where it is asserted that Negro children receive some kind of detriment when segregated. Dr. Winkle confirmed my suspicions that this was a very strangely put together statement. For a moment he touched on the idea that major precedents were altogether rejected, namely, Plessy v. Ferguson. Furthermore, the reason for rejecting them was not some legal principle from the Constitution or some other precedent, but social research, which is even today considered shaky ground (for “a recent study shows how healthful eggs really are for you…”). Because the research showed that Negro children received a detriment in segregated environments, then the “separate but equal” standing was flawed; Warren asserted that separate inherently could never be equal, with the research as the major backbone.
It’s wild. Now, I’ll be quick to admit that I think the Brown v. Board decision is a helpful one, and a triumph in civil rights. But it’s wild. I felt anxious when reading it. It seemed as if Warren and the others were issuing the decision as a desperate attempt at something long hoped for. A desperate attempt. I’m not political science student or jurisprudence major, but it feels odd to say that a huge weight was given to the civil rights movement when the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment with contemporary social research. The interpretation doesn’t sound, well, legal—not to say it was illegal, but more alegal. It raises for me the curiosity not of the Supreme Court’s authority, but of what legal information may be lacking in the Constitution itself. I am, however, altogether unqualified to ask any serious questions about law or constitutionality.
On the whole I felt like the conversation with Dr. Winkle was too short, but I was also in no state to continue it at lunch that day (my head-cold wasn’t quite gone at that time). He spent a long length of time talking about the immediate history playing into the Brown v. Board decision, including some insight into the attitudes and interplay among the Justices. He also spoke briefly of Thurgood Marshall. I wish we had more time to talk with him! Ashton, another intern who is a political science major at Ole Miss and a huge fan of Dr. Winkle, would surely agree that our meeting was a fun one.
Please excuse me if I messed up some legal term or other. We Johnnies often only understand anything in part and as it relates to parts of a lot of other things.
No comments:
Post a Comment